Madam Speaker, I again feel privileged to take part in this debate. I listened very intently to the comments made by the hon. member for Wild Rose.
The hon. member has articulated some very important points. He has placed some of the emphasis where it needs to be placed, and that is on the rights of victims. I received a comment in that vein very recently. This is something, again, that has to be taken into consideration.
The other comment I would make was raised by the member on the government side, and that is the speed with which we can make this decision based on the conflicting expert opinions and evidence that appears to exist in the context of this debate.
I think that is an important backdrop here. It is exactly what this motion, brought forward by the official opposition, is about. This is too important an issue to rush headlong into, resulting in flawed legislation that might very well wind up back here on the floor of the House of Commons.
There is no guarantee that will happen. Anything that comes out of this legislature is subject to judicial interpretation. But we cannot be curtailed or hobbled in our work with that paranoia in mind.
With those comments, I reiterate that this is an opportunity for us to get it right. This is an opportunity for us to use what can only be called cutting-edge technology.
Another example that I discussed recently with the member opposite is the use of DNA in retrieving the bodies in the recent air crash at Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia, and allowing those families to have closure on the issue. It puts emphasis on how important this is and how important it is for victims to have closure on some of the terrible unsolved crimes. In British Columbia alone there are over 600 unsolved murders. The use of technology to have closure on those matters is extremely important.